Keeping Government out of Healthcare- I'm Confused

[Guest]

BTK writes:

"So why does our government who is so very concerned () about our well being, allow the pharmaceutical companies to continue in this mode. Why should American women be subjected to paying over $800 for a 90 day supply of the same medication her German counterpart pays $139 for a 90 day supply."

Wouldn't that entail "government" getting involved in private industry's "right" to set it's own rates & let competition rule the marketplace?


Then CABO writes

I believe every American should have the right to secure whatever level of insurance coverage they want

"and the government has no business regulating that condition."

What if millions of Americans WANT the government to help them access and secure whatever level of insurance they want? What if millions of Americans over 65 WANT the govermnment to design and run a health insurance program for them? And what if millions more want the governemnt to supply their health care needs as veterans of the U.S. Military.

It seems arbitrary to say "whatever you want" but hten put the restriction that you can't "want" anything that would save money over the cost of profit-making insurance and pharmaceutical corporations.

[Guest]

BTK writes:

"So why does our government who is so very concerned () about our well being, allow the pharmaceutical companies to continue in this mode. Why should American women be subjected to paying over $800 for a 90 day supply of the same medication her German counterpart pays $139 for a 90 day supply."

Wouldn't that entail "government" getting involved in private industry's "right" to set it's own rates & let competition rule the marketplace?


Then CABO writes

I believe every American should have the right to secure whatever level of insurance coverage they want

"and the government has no business regulating that condition."

What if millions of Americans WANT the government to help them access and secure whatever level of insurance they want? What if millions of Americans over 65 WANT the govermnment to design and run a health insurance program for them? And what if millions more want the governemnt to supply their health care needs as veterans of the U.S. Military.

It seems arbitrary to say "whatever you want" but hten put the restriction that you can't "want" anything that would save money over the cost of profit-making insurance and pharmaceutical corporations.

I consider the medical profession, insurance companies and pharmaceutical corporations in this country to be even more like vultures than Wall Street. They prey on the sick and vulnerable. It's beneficial to all of the above to keep you sick and coming back for more. :Screen_of_Death:

[Guest]

The issue is the government protecting the pharmaceutical industry....and not representing we the people. Their oath is to serve and protect (excuse me....:1rotfl:).

Feel free to quote me, but please do not restate my intent casting your interpretation of it in a restatement of what I said.

Just like the oil industry and any energy related issues, the pharmaceutical incestuous relationship with our representatives is flagrant.

And of course we the people permit it....hence we get what we deserve....nothing.

btk

[Guest]

The issue is the government protecting the pharmaceutical industry....and not representing we the people. Their oath is to serve and protect (excuse me....:1rotfl:).

Feel free to quote me, but please do not restate my intent casting your interpretation of it in a restatement of what I said.

Just like the oil industry and any energy related issues, the pharmaceutical incestuous relationship with our representatives is flagrant.

And of course we the people permit it....hence we get what we deserve....nothing.

btk

So why would a Public Health Option not be protecting "we the people" from an unscrupulous health insurance industry in the same manner? I only see the difference as being that one affects one's wallet directly, while the other doesn't concern you. Would you favor health reform if it limited the percentage or total amount of profit one of the oligarch insurance company can make off an individual or group policy, or even the percent of return that can be given to stockholders?

That's exactly the effect that trustbusting had a century ago.

[Guest]

I consider the medical profession, insurance companies and pharmaceutical corporations in this country to be even more like vultures than Wall Street. They prey on the sick and vulnerable. It's beneficial to all of the above to keep you sick and coming back for more. :Screen_of_Death:

What is it that you like about this country?

Yoda

[Guest]

If you think the medical industry is corrupt just wait till the Government takes it over then you will see real professional corruption.

[Guest]

were some of the details of the "negotiations" taking place by Pelosi and her henchmen to get relenting Dems to agree to vote for the new health care reform bill. The closing comment went something like....."...many new bridges, court houses and miles of highway made their way into several states today..."

I wonder what the rank file members of those districts would have to say about the bartering by their representatives.

What ever happened to right or wrong? Doing what is for the benefit of the people. I know some will try/attempt to maintain the representatives did their job by getting the new bridges, court houses, etc. Not if it does not represent the will of the people which I would err on the side of past practice....their decisions did not take into account the will of the constituency.....that would be precedent seeting and not self serving or benefit the lobbyists and cronies.

btk

[Guest]

Oh I agree there'll be plenty of corruption - there always is.

But there's something I just thought of yesterday. How many mayors, governors, representatives, etc are caught and sent to prison? A lot - and that undermines our confidence in government.

How many businessmen went to jail for ruining the economy? What AIG executives went to jail? Was the President of BofA led out for the 'perp walk'?

We got Bernie Madoff - one (huge) Ponzi schemer. We got some of his associates.

The criminals who lost a trillion dollars still ahve their jobs.

At least the government forced out the GM and Chrysler management in THEIR bailouts. Isn't that the "Republican" way - if you take our aid, you play by our rules? Except TARP doesn't seem to have worked out like that - despite the fact that the common consumer can at least understand what GM and Chrysler produces. Understand what AIG does requires a postgraduate degree in some cases. Heck, I worked in the industry for Fidelity Investments and Putnam Investments and *I* certainly don't understand it all.

Seems to me we have a better chance of weeding out the bad apples in the public sector.

[Guest]

It's NOT about health care and it never was. It's about government gaining ever more control over every aspect of your life and they are on a Kamikaze mission to get it. Some Americans are waking up to this thankfully.

[Guest]

Exactly!!! This never was about health care. This bill is so staggering, its unbelievable. Does anyone understand what's in it? If they really were interested in improving health care it could be done easily. That is not their objective.

[Guest]

It amazes me how easily some will turn their lives over to the federal government. Mind boggling really.

[Guest]

are back in:

public option
financing of abortions
insuring illegal aliens

and these are the ones they are throwing back in everybody's face and are telling us that.

How to pay for it? Same old line of BS....$500 billion from Medicare (but no benefits will be cut (barf)....not one dime will be added to the deficit (barfbarf)...I guess this one is correct, it will not be one dime it will be several trillion.

If you haven't called your representative in the last 72 hours you are letting them do their own thing AGAIN........

Hopefully it dies on the vine like all previous attempts. Yep Obama is there today giving his personal support....hopefully as ineffectively as he did for Virginia and NJ.

btk

[Guest]

BTK writes:


What if millions of Americans WANT the government to help them access and secure whatever level of insurance they want? What if millions of Americans over 65 WANT the govermnment to design and run a health insurance program for them? And what if millions more want the governemnt to supply their health care needs as veterans of the U.S. Military.

It seems arbitrary to say "whatever you want" but hten put the restriction that you can't "want" anything that would save money over the cost of profit-making insurance and pharmaceutical corporations.

I would be happy to put the issue on a national referendum. Every poll I've seen says you lose. You cavalierly dismiss the tens of millions who don't want the current concoction Congress has brewed. You also selectively forget the posters including myself that are for health care reform and posted accordingly, but, are against the current legislation being advanced.

[Guest]

GREAT POST CABO....It has been very frustrating to read posts as if those who oppose the proposed legislation are stupid and insensitive.

I cannot think of anyone who does not want healthcare reform. This bill is going to make the poorer poorer in my opinion (one CBO estimate I read said that those with a $41000.00 income will be REQUIRED to pay about $1500.00 per year for health care..they pay NOTHING as of now and it will be against the law for them NOT to have it), and it is NEVER EVER going to be deficit neutral !

Not only do I question the cost and type of reform but also the timing. This congress and President are going full steam ahead and I have yet to see a poll of american citizens who rank this in the top 3 of issues they want ! In addition, we have a war in Afghanastan and threats from Iran and others and China is advancing on us like wildfire but we are $%& bent on getting this health reform through !

[Guest]

The beginning of the decline of the strongest nation on the planet.

We won't slide to the depths some predict i.e. a third world status.....but we may well be on our way to no longer being the world's number one. There are too many competitors that are putting country first and the resources to back it. That is not what we are doing. Quite the contrary.

How long could you maintain your lifestyle with declining revenues and an over drawn check book?

btk

[Guest]

It's far from over. They passed something the American people largely don't want and they will pay for it next year with their jobs. Even if the Senate passes a form of it, it doesn't take effect until 2013. After BO is sent packing in 2012 they will start to undo the damage and fix health care properly among all the other things he and the radicles in congress have screwed up.

How long could you maintain your lifestyle with declining revenues and an over drawn check book?

Great question! One the liberals here or anywhere else can't and won't answer. Why? Because all it has to do is sound good and make them feel good. Nothing else matters, especially the actual outcomes.

It's kind of like outcome based education. It's ok if 2+2=5 as long as the child feels good about it. It's not fair if they can't figure out it's actually 4.

[Guest]

This is a sad day for America. Even though all the polls show that a vast majority don't want this monstrosity they passed it anyway. We can only hope that it can be stopped in the Senate. I'm not holding my breath.

[Guest]

It seems to me we are stuck between two options and I'll use a little of the inflammatory rhetoric from both sides.

Choice #1: Leave things the way they are and let corporations run our lives and cut us off as soon as we're not profitable for them.

Choice #2: Turn our lives over to the government. At least nobody has told us we can't vote when we're no longer profitable.

I'm dismayed, but not surprised that the bill that came out of Washington wasn't as much health care reform (which would require attacking every issue I've raised in the past and a few more - and do it simultaneously) as some incomprehensible committe-designed ******* child.

Yes, most people are happy with their insurance. or so they say. Ask anyone who's been cut off when they needed benefits. When they've paid into 'the system' for so long only for it to leave them high and dry.

I've had two bad run-ins with insurance companies - fortunately nothing I couldn't solve.

First was a doctor for an HMO who wrote down in my file that I'd had polio when I'd never had any such thing. I told him why I had adhesions in my ankle and he just didn't listen. (Which surprised another doctor reading my file later on)

Second was the insurance company telling me that my vasectomy would be covered. So I went and had it, then they rejected paying for it, saying it was elective. When I protested, they asked for the name rank and serial number of the representative who told me it would be covered. Of course I didn't have that so I paid for it myself (around $650).

When the insurance companies know that the vast majority of subscribers are 'happy' because they still make a profit for the company and therefore still think they'll be covered in the event of catastrophic illness, they can keep cutting off the 2% and call it "isolated incidents".

$300B in profits. *PROFITS* (Not the cost of the care - the PROFITS) Somehow it's ok to give that money to a CEO and the Board of Directors, but it's not ok to give that to the doctors and nurses that would be providing the additional care under a public option?

Like I said, I'm no fan of a public option. But I find it less offensive than the "sick people are a growth industry and profit center" mentality that has overtaken the insurance companies over the last 20 years. ...just don't get TOO sick.

[Guest]

The point is simple:

What works Socialism or Capitalism?

Neither are perfect.

Capitalism has always worked better than socialism.

Capitalism cannot function with Governments trying to overly control it.

History shows that Socialism never works under any situation.

[Guest]

1. There are more than two choices.

2. Insurance companies work within about a 3% profit margin.

3. When the government option drives private insurers out of business, then where where you go?

4. Name one program where the government improved efficiency and reduced costs?

Obama said if we pass the stimulus, unemployment wouldn't go above 8%, now it's at 10.2% and climbing. 95% of Americans won't see their taxes go up one dime? It's all a big fat lie. Medicare is bankrupt, SS is bankrupt and now they want health care right next to out of control debt.

Where does all this confidence in government come from?

I'm still waiting for someone on the left to give an answer to a simple question.

How long could you maintain your lifestyle with declining revenues and an over drawn check book?

[Guest]

You guys are right. It's not about health care or they would be listening to the people. They just come up with pretty words while they aim the knife straight for your back. If it was what they want us to believe, there would be no "bridges, roads, etc." or all the double-talk. The transparency is just as hidden as the pork stuff.....only more so.

[Guest]

It amazes me how easily some will turn their lives over to the federal government. Mind boggling really.

It's not about health care IF you have your own, or company supplied, or government supplied (Medicare & VA) health care already. It's totally about health care if you can't get it now, even if you want to pay for it!


I couldn't care less if Congress is forced to have the same "public option" as the bill has- that's an immature red herring. Talking about illegal immigrants and abortion provisions and "privacy" are also red herrings.

Illegal aliens are not covered by this bill. End of story- except for those who want to perpetuate a lie. Federal funding for abortions- still banned as it was in the Hyde Amendment. What the conservatives wanted was to outlaw all legal abortion- that's a whole different argument.

Finally, and most importantly, your "private" insurance company already has every bit of information you could ever give them about your health, and they have some low level bureaucrat making life-or-death decisions about you based on some book of "covered" & "non-covered" illnesses. It's disingenuous to claim that some "shadow" government will somehow take away your God-given freedom if health care is made more affordable. If it hasn't happened yet with Social Security, FICA, federal taxes, the Census and other programs, then why assume all of a sudden things will change.

On the other hand, if you believe that the loss of privacy and freedom is already a fact (which, personally, I do "in part"), then this isn't going to make it any worse than it already is!

[Guest]

dklassen - on a few of your points:

2 - The problem with insurance companies is that they treat sick people like a product. That's fine when you're talking about cars or refrigerators. But these are *people*. You can NOT treat health insurance as if it were "any other industry". That's the one thing that left a bad taste in my mouth when working at Beth Israel Hospital. I loved the fact that we were trying to offer better care and do it more efficiently (because the insurance companies had us by the short and curlies) but there was also a push to "fill the beds" - more inpatient admissions. That part didn't make me feel too good. It's ok for GM to drop an unprofitable product line. Is it ok for Aetna, et al., to do the same with people?

3. Won't happen the way you think. Insurers, as they have been doing for nearly 25 years, will simply drop the unprofitable segments. I feel no pity for them. They're the ones who decided, rightly or wrongly, that the shareholders were more important than the subscribers.

Regarding your Obama quote. I'm searching all over the web and all I'm finding are people who SAY Obama said this, but I can't find it. Even people claiming that a brietbart.com sourced quote says it can't point to it. I've found dozens of references on the first several Google pages - but no actual quote. I've found references to the unemployment rate being 7.6% when he said it. But, again, no actual quote.

The closest I've been able to find is a story on MSNBC.COM from January 9 that says the President-Elect said that if the stimulus didn't go far enough, we could expect "double digit unemployment" and worse. Now from everything I'm reding, unemployment, which is a lagging, as opposed to leading, economic indicator is levelling off. Granted it's just over 10%, but I also have been reading about how states aren't exactly spending the stimulus money quickly - been very slow to get to hiring.

Where does this confidence in government come from? I think you're proceeding from a false assumption. It's not a confidence in government. Obama wasn't elected because all those people agreed with him in lock-step. It's largely because of the people who believed the new John McCain's policy of "more of the same" would be even worse. My older daughter (who just graduated college) said they were terming these people "Obamicans" as the exact opposite of what happened when we coined the term "Reagan Democrats".

And if you believe revenues will continue to decline, you haven't been paying attention to the GDP lately.

Of course, I have no faith in our government to hold the line on spending when revenues grow from the inevitable recovery (strong or weak). They'll take it as a sign to spend even more.

[Guest]

Check out video on computation of GDP

http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-16-fuzzy-numbers

Bob

[Guest]

the composition of the GDP? Or how many care? (as long as they feel good!).

How about a guess how many will have the simple ability to sit and listen to the whole video for almost 16 minutes?

And far too many are all to willing to espouse the party line (either party) instead of understanding for themselves.....and then holding their representatives, including the POTUS ......ACCOUNTABLE.

It has not happened in the last 40 years and since history sets the pace....it is unlikely to happen....or said differently the malaise of the fickle Americans will continue.

btk

[Guest]

Just TRY to explain the difference between GDP and the "old standard" GNP to a layman!

And for accountability, I'd like to see a Constitutional Ammendments allowing the Line Item Veto. Even the GOP gave it to Clinton back in the early 90s but the USSC shot it down (I still disagree with their reasoning - the override capability kept the division of powers but that wasn't my decision to make).

Wouldn't totally solve the problem but it would certainly cut down on the "hostage ammendments" that Congress likes to attach to important bills.